You obviously think Tomlinson was more effective than Faulk, and it's not even close. That's why you would pick someone to be on your team - because of how effective they are. Why else would you pick someone over the other?

You obviously think Tomlinson was more effective than Faulk, and it's not even close. That's why you would pick someone to be on your team - because of how effective they are. Why else would you pick someone over the other?

A 1500/500 yard back isn't the "elite big man" of the NBA and the 1000/1000 threats are the "elite guards."

I'd argue that building around a player like Faulk would be easier than someone like Tomlinson. Obviously both are great, but different.

Faulk presented problems for a defense that really no other running back did to the degree that he did. He ran wide reciever patterns, was elusive as hell in the open field, knew how to get in the endzone...and he could run the ball. There wasn't a thing he couldn't do out there at an elite level.

Ray had the 4th highest yardage total in one half yesterday vs the Lions. He eclipsed 200 hundred total yards (150 rushing and 50 receiving) in only the first half. He only got two carries in the second half and could have had a real shot at breaking the single game record for most yards from scrimmage. This guy is special.

A 1500/500 yard back isn't the "elite big man" of the NBA and the 1000/1000 threats are the "elite guards."

I'd argue that building around a player like Faulk would be easier than someone like Tomlinson. Obviously both are great, but different.

Faulk presented problems for a defense that really no other running back did to the degree that he did. He ran wide reciever patterns, was elusive as hell in the open field, knew how to get in the endzone...and he could run the ball. There wasn't a thing he couldn't do out there at an elite level.

He could also block and read defenses picking up blitzes. He was similar to having a coach on the field. High football IQ. While some of these things dont show up on a stat sheet it also helped the team in positive ways. Things people take for granted because i've seen guys miss a block, dont pick up a blitz and the outcome isnt good.

I hate when people consider RB's that are threats in the passing game as soft or "unpreferred" over typical "pound the rock" type bruisers. With the prevalence of the 3-4 and the insane speed that is all over the field for most NFL defenses, screen passing has essentially become the new sweep play.

And until the NFL or some other stat keeping website starts keeping stats of behind the line of scrimmage receiving yards, the misconception that receiving RB's are simply "adjusted" slot receivers will continue

I hate when people consider RB's that are threats in the passing game as soft or "unpreferred" over typical "pound the rock" type bruisers. With the prevalence of the 3-4 and the insane speed that is all over the field for most NFL defenses, screen passing has essentially become the new sweep play.

And until the NFL or some other stat keeping website starts keeping stats of behind the line of scrimmage receiving yards, the misconception that receiving RB's are simply "adjusted" slot receivers will continue

I have been thinking about this exact thing this entire thread...although, I think that if there is a "misconception" that it is the other way around, I think most people assume that the majority of most RB's recieving yards comes out of the backfeild, and not lined up in the slot...

I know that Faulk lined up at slot all the time, infact I know the he lined up as a straight up wide out even...and you are right, it would be nice if they seperated his recieving yards in his stats and showed us how much was out of the backfeild compared to how much was just him playing WR...

because really the only benifit a team gets from a RB that can line up as a WR is a saved roster spot...